Problems with referees?!

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

They really need to "set the tone" with how strict certain things are going to be called. Most importantly, they need to be consistent.
Andy B.

Consistent calls on rules usually happen in 1 regional, but from regional to regional it varies I believe.

Case in point.
At NJ the teams were told that if you are selected in the alliance pairings and were in the top 8, you could refuse and still be chosen, while teams lower than the top 8 had no choice in the matter - be picked or don't play.
While looking back, I was questioning that call at the time, and thankfully it had no impact on the finals selction there, it was apparently a wrong call.
In UTC, we went with that ruling and denied being chosen and accepted another team's offer. We were then told and I think embarrased on stage with a different ruling than in NJ.

While rulings are usually consistent during 1 regional, I believe if nothing is said between regionals about wrong calls, then they are subject to be repeated, or slight the view of the rules of a team at another regional.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Elgin Clock

Consistent calls on rules usually happen in 1 regional, but from regional to regional it varies I believe.

Case in point.
At NJ the teams were told that if you are selected in the alliance pairings and were in the top 8, you could refuse and still be chosen, while teams lower than the top 8 had no choice in the matter - be picked or don't play.
While looking back, I was questioning that call at the time, and thankfully it had no impact on the finals selction there, it was apparently a wrong call.
In UTC, we went with that ruling and denied being chosen and accepted another team's offer. We were then told and I think embarrased on stage with a different ruling than in NJ.

The way that rule was interpretted at UTC is the way that it has been interpretted in years past. now, i don't know if the rules have changed (and they very well could have), but i think it is actually the fault of the refs at NJ for interpretting the rule incorrectly. either way, 571 would like to apologize for whatever embarassment our initial choosing of 237 may have caused, we would have loved to have you on our alliance.

This rule has always been a problem, and there are always a few teams that don't know about it and get in trouble. in the future, it should probably be announced beforehand so that things like this do not happen.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

now that i think about it, that could be used as a good strategy if you know 2 top 8 teams are wanting to be together...

[Elgin Clock]

Originally Posted by ToMMan b182

now that i think about it, that could be used as a good strategy if you know 2 top 8 teams are wanting to be together...

That is what happened... We told 571 that if they chose us, we would refuse. Obviously I would like to believe that information did not get around to the selector on 571, and it was not like you said Tom, and a strategical move.